CALGARY, Alberta, March 20, 2017 (LifeSiteNews) -- Alberta’s Progressive Conservative (PC) party has found a new leader who just might have the teeth needed to take on and defeat the province’s New Democratic Party (NDP) in the 2019 election. Former MP Jason Kenney won a decisive first ballot victory on Saturday, gathering 75 percent of the vote.

Kenney, who as a Conservative MP had what Campaign Life Coalition called a “perfect voting record” on life and family issues, campaigned on the promise to unite the PC and Wild Rose parties into a coalition to beat the NDP.

“Today is the beginning of the end of this disastrous socialist government,” Kenney said in his victory speech. “Today we have chosen unity. Today, it’s springtime in Alberta!”

Since coming into power in May 2015 the NDP government has assaulted parental rights and bullied Christian schools with its pro-LGBT agenda.

The NDP has forced Christian schools to set up “gay-straight alliance” clubs. It has forced them to comply with its controversial transgender guidelines for forming school policy. And it has defunded the province’s largest Christian home-schooling association, effectively shutting it down. It has also begun a massive overhaul of the province's K-12 curriculum with one of the goals being to normalize homosexuality, transgenderism, and gender fluidity.

Parents battling the NDP government’s pro-LGBTQ policies in schools will likely see Kenney as their knight in shining armor because of his strong defense of parents’ rights.

Last September Kenney blasted the NDP government’s education minister for suggesting that he would pull the funding from Christian schools if they refused to permit gay-straight alliances and provide all-gender washrooms.

When launching his bid for leadership in July, Kenney decried what he called the “ideological agenda” of the NDP, saying that the Notley government is “planning ‘radical changes to the school curriculum’.”

“You know what that means for these ideologues,” he said at that time: “It doesn’t mean better measurable school outcomes. It means social engineering and pedagogical fads in our schools.”

Although Kenney has a proven pro-life-and-family track record, he did not campaign on this, but on his promise to “unite the right” and bring about a merger of parties, a move that many social conservatives believe is the only way to defeat the social NDP government of Premier Rachel Notley.

Critics suspect that under Kenney’s leadership, the party will “tack right on social issues and rights of minorities similar to the Wildrose.” Immediately after Kenney’s big win, the NDP, Liberals, and Alberta Party took to social media to urge PC supporters not happy with their new boss to come over to their side, reported The Star.

In an apparent last-minute attempt to wedge support away from Kenney, the pro-abortion group Alberta Pro-Choice Coalition (APCC) complained loudly when it said he had failed to answer their questionnaire on where he stood on abortion.

Alberta social conservative Paul Bunner, a former staffer to Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper, told LifeSiteNews that the APCC was likely attempting to “isolate Jason” at the last minute by alienating social “progressives” among the delegates to Saturday’s leadership convention. If this was the strategy, it backfired.

This is not the first time Kenney has weathered attacks on his pro-life position.

Last July Kenney was attacked for his strong pro-life views after declaring his bid for leadership. While he did not back down from his pro-life convictions, pro-life advocates said they were “disappointed” to hear him say at that time that these convictions did not have a place on his platform.

Kenney told the CBC at that time: “I believe in the value of human life and I apply it to capital punishment and all bioethical questions, but in my 20 years in Parliament I haven’t given a speech about this, let alone proposed a motion or a bill.”

Kenney noted in the same interview how as federal MP, he supported the Harper Conservatives’ policy not to introduce legislation regulating abortion.

He said in the same interview that if elected leader of the PC Party he would “allow for freedom of conscience for [MLAs] to represent their constituents on ethical issues, and to do so when those matters come up as votes, but as a government we wouldn’t be taking initiatives on those issues.”

According to Cameron Wilson of the Wilberforce Project, a number of Alberta pro-lifers joined the PCs to support Kenney’s candidacy. The organization, formerly Alberta Pro Life, vigorously encouraged its members and supporters to join the party and participate in local riding processes to select convention delegates.

“We sold quite a few party memberships,” Wilson said.

“There were a lot of tight races to select delegates. Three or four pro-life votes made a difference,” he added.

RIVERHEAD, New York, March 20, 2017 (LifeSiteNews) – A New York Catholic Church cancelled a "Unity Town Hall" scheduled to take place in its school cafeteria after local pro-life activists objected to representatives from Planned Parenthood speaking.

Non-demoninational Pastor Joni Lupis, president and director of the March 4 Life New York, told LifeSiteNews she discovered the event when she saw "ladies going around Riverhead town giving out these fliers" about it.

"The ladies were wearing pins that said, ‘I love Planned Parenthood,’" said Lupis. "The fliers didn’t really say what was happening at the meeting; the fliers said that they were having a grassroots meeting."

Lupis looked it up and learned that St. John the Evangelist parish was scheduled to host a "Grassroots Town Hall for Unity" organized by "social justice advocates" on Sunday, March 26.

The purpose of this meeting, according to local media, was "to serve as an initial gathering of members of vulnerable or targeted groups, activists and people who want to do something about the problems they see but don’t know how to help." It was to feature Leslie Wright and Ashley Barry of Planned Parenthood, America's largest abortion provider. It was also scheduled to host a speaker from the "LGBTQ community" and the Long Island Transgender Advocacy Coalition.

According to the local media report, "Southold Town Anti-Bias Task Force member Dr. Carolyn Peabody and retired professor and author Dinnie Gordon" organized the event. The goal of the Southold Town Anti-Bias Task Force is "to plan and implement programs to promote intergroup harmony, reduce prejudice, foster respect and tolerance, and ... advise the Town Board on the appropriate responses to bias-related issues and incidents whenever necessary."

Originially, pro-lifers planned to protest the meeting, Lupis said. Then, they planned to attend it to make their voices heard. But eventually so many people complained to the church that "they cancelled the whole meeting."

Lupis said she pointed out to the pastor that the women recruiting for the event were explicitly promoting Planned Parenthood, not immigration or other issues, with their pins.

"Sister Margaret Smyth, who runs North Fork Spanish Apostolate, which is a separate agency that leases space from us, in conjunction with" a community action group "wanted to have an open ... community meeting," Father Larry Duncklee, pastor of St. John the Evangelist, told LifeSiteNews.

"The agenda was supposed to be … on issues of immigration, health concerns, bias and bullying for the community," said Duncklee. "And unfortunately, the other coordinator from the ... community group picked some speakers that were not in compliance with the spirit of what we were trying to do."

"Once we found that out, we disinvited those people and because of that, we cancelled the meeting itself," he said. "I did not know that Planned Parenthood was going to be given a platform to speak. And I was very happy that people in the community informed me of that."

Duncklee said that when outside groups lease space from the Church, they must comply with certain restrictions. St. John the Evangelist leases space to the government program HeadStart, he said, and HeadStart is allowed to remove crosses from the rooms it uses. But it can't "put things up that are contrary to our faith teachings."

The town hall's Facebook event continues to list the event as occurring Sunday at St. John the Evangelist. According to the Facebook event page, it is hosted by the North Fork Unity Collaborative.

WASHINGTON, D.C., March 20, 2017 (LifeSiteNews) – During the first day of Judge Neil Gorsuch's Supreme Court confirmation hearing, a Democratic senator argued against confirming Gorsuch because of his belief that "the intentional taking of a human life by private persons is always wrong."

"President Trump repeatedly promised that his judicial nominees would be pro-life, and ‘automatically’ overturn Roe v. Wade," Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-CA, said to the Senate Judiciary Committee. "Judge Gorsuch has not had occasion to rule directly on a case involving Roe. However, his writings do raise questions. Specifically, he wrote that he believes there are no exceptions to the principle that 'the intentional taking of a human life by private persons is always wrong.' This language has been interpreted by both pro-life and pro-choice organizations to mean he would overturn Roe."

Feinstein used words like "baby" and "mother" as she argued that abortion is about "a woman’s fundamental and constitutional right to privacy."

"Two weeks ago, The Washington Post ran on op-ed written by a woman who desperately wanted to have a baby," said Feinstein. "She described how she and her husband went to great lengths for four years trying to get pregnant and were thrilled when they finally succeeded."

Then "tragically, after her 21-week checkup, they discovered her daughter had multi-cystic dysplastic kidney disease," continued Feinstein. "They were told by three separate doctors that her condition was 100 percent fatal and that the risk to the mother was sevenfold if she carried her pregnancy to term. The mother described their excruciating decision and the unforgiving process the couple endured to get the medical care they needed."

"President Trump repeatedly promised to appoint someone in the mold of Justice Scalia and said that the nomination of Judge Gorsuch illustrates he’s a man of his word," said Feinstein. "The Supreme Court has the final say on whether a woman will continue to have control over her own body or whether decisions about her healthcare will be determined by politicians and the government."

Transgender athlete tried to murder official who questioned his competing with women

Michael 'Lauren' Jeska competed as a woman. Michael Jeska before his 'transition'

BIRMINGHAM, England, March 20, 2017 (LifeSiteNews) -- A male transgender athlete, worried that his numerous awards from competing against women runners might be taken away, attempted to murder the officials who were investigating him.

Michael Jeska was a "fell runner," or hill climbing competitor, who "transitioned" via gender reassignment surgery to "Lauren" in 2000. He began winning races against women, including the 2010, 2011, and 2012 Women's English Fellrunning Championships, and was crowned the 2012 British women's champion.

But when Jeska's eligibility to compete as a female was questioned by an athletic authority because of high testosterone, he decided to take action.

Jeska, 42, pleaded guilty last September in a British court to the attempted murder of Ralph Knibbs, 51. Jeska was sentenced last Tuesday.

Knibbs, a former rugby star and head of human resources for UK Athletics, met with Jeska at his home in March 2016 to discuss his eligibility with the sport's governing body. An anonymous official at Jeska's running club told The Daily Telegraph that women competitors were "upset" because "the feeling when (he) won (his) titles was that it was unfair on the girls."

A week later, on March 22, 2016, Jeska armed himself with three knives and drove 100 miles to the British Athletics headquarters in Birmingham's Alexander Stadium. He entered Knibbs' office and immediately began repeatedly stabbing him in the head and neck, cutting his carotid artery and his jugular vein. An eyewitness testified that Jeska looked "as though she were trying to skewer meat."

That means not only joining the Conservative Party of Canada by March 28 to vote for a new leader but asking other social conservatives to do the same.

“There’s actually a lot at stake here, which is why I make this strong appeal,” Lemieux told a crowd in Barry’s Bay earlier this month.

“The struggle that you see in Canadian society over values is taking place in the Conservative Party as well,” he said.

“Under no circumstances should you think that the Conservative Party is immune to political correctness, or that they are immune to encroachment on freedom of speech.”

The two things that will “define the Conservative Party going forward” are the person elected as leader on May 27 and “the composition of the membership.”

Therefore, social conservatives “absolutely must join the Party at this time if you want your voice to be heard.”

A Catholic father of five children and a retired Armed Forces lieutenant colonel, the 53-year-old Lemieux was a Member of Parliament for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell rural riding near Ottawa from 2006 to 2015.

He and Saskatchewan MP Brad Trost are the only two of 14 Conservative Party leadership contenders endorsed by Campaign Life Coalition.

Pro-lifers told to “sit down and shut up”

Social conservatives have “given up a lot of ground,” Lemieux told the gathering.

“We continually move back,” he said. “And it’s because we have this normal human fear of not wanting to engage, right, and politicians have that same fear.”

After all, pro-life advocates are told routinely: “Oh, is life important to you? Sit down and shut up because it’s not important to us,” noted Lemieux.

“If you raise a life issue to a politician, even a conservative politician, even a leadership candidate what is the answer you will likely get?” he said. “You will get, that debate is shut down, that debate is over, you know as leader I refuse to reopen that debate.”

Or social conservatives will be granted “the big concession” that “well, you can believe that if you want in your own home or in your church,” Lemieux said.

“But don’t you think for a second that you can step outside and expect to articulate what you believe in or, you know, you’re going to be phobic of some kind, or you’re being intolerant.”

“Outrageous” language by Liberal minister

A perfect illustration of this came up during the evening’s Q&A, when Lemieux was asked to respond to Liberal Minister for the Status of Women Maryam Monsef's recent claim that denying access to abortion was “gender-based violence.”

That a minister of the crown would use such language is “outrageous,” Lemieux said.

“Look at the terminology. Is that meant to intimidate you and kind of push you back? Now you are an instigator of violence if you happen to be opposed to abortion.”

The same view is “promulgated throughout the media, and it’s meant to make us feel shame for being pro-life, which of course we should not be,” he added.

Tories silent on Trudeau’s global abortion funding

Their aversion to life issues has weakened the Conservatives as Official Opposition, Lemieux noted, also in response to a question on Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and the Liberals pledging $20 million to global abortion fund “She Decides.”

The Liberals have since announced a three-year, $650 million commitment by Canada promote abortion in foreign countries.

Lemieux stated he was “absolutely opposed” to this and as prime minister would reverse it.

“Why are we using taxpayer money, your money and my money, to fund abortions abroad in countries?”

Under the Conservatives, Canada’s Maternal Health Initiative funded only “proper healthcare to newborn infants and to mothers to save lives” and did not “include abortion and abortion services,” Lemieux said.

Trudeau’s Liberal government had already reversed this Conservative policy before committing to the global abortion fund.

But “sadly,” he said, the “Conservative Opposition is not holding the Liberals to account on this. … It’s kind of all quiet in the House, so it’s not a good scenario.”

Canadians not interested in reclaiming marriage

Lemieux says he advocates free speech and is open to having debates on Parliament on “any issue of interest to Canadians.”

“How is it that in our strong and healthy democracy there are subjects that we can’t talk about?” he said.

One notable example is sex-selective abortion, he said. “Parliament has never debated sex-selective abortion, so how could the debate possibly be over. How could it be shut down when it never started?”

One thing Canadians don’t seem interested in is same-sex “marriage,” Lemieux noted when the subject was raised.

He believes in the definition of marriage as between “one man and one woman,” but Lemieux said he has seen no vigorous campaigns to reverse the legalization of same-sex “marriage,” as is the case with abortion.

“I think Canadians have to indicate that it is of interest to Canadians.”

Free speech under attack in gender bill

Lemieux opposes Liberal Bill C-16, which adds “gender identity and expression” as prohibited grounds for discrimination, on the grounds it is a threat to free speech.

University of Toronto professor Jordan Peterson has done the same and stated publicly that he would refuse to use the pronouns “zer” or “zim” even if a “gender-fluid” person demands him to do so, Lemieux said.

“He is standing strongly for freedom of speech and I will say as he should. Because many of us don’t see what’s coming, but it is coming.”

The “friction” Peterson has received “is a good indication that what he is saying means something, because if it did not, he would not be getting two letters of reprimand from the University of Toronto” or the pressure “to conform.”

Protect conscience rights and parents’ rights

In response to a question on euthanasia, Lemieux said he would “focus tremendous resources on palliative care and on pain management research.”

People will be under “tremendous societal and medical pressure” to “choose the lethal injection” because “it’s so inexpensive, it’s so clean and efficient” compared with the cost of palliative care.

“If we continue our research and funding for palliative care, then hopefully Canadians will not choose assisted suicide and euthanasia, they’ll have an option.”

He supports conscience rights protection for doctors and medical staff so they would not be forced, as is the case in Ontario, to collaborate with euthanasia at the risk of losing their jobs.

Asked about sex education, Lemieux said he believes “parents are the first educators of their children. They know best; the state does not know best.”

Although education is a provincial matter, he would work to ensure “government policies do not insert themselves between parents and their children.”

Stand your ground!

“My call to Conservatives and to social conservatives is that we need to stand our ground and stop backing up,” he said.

“That means that if you believe in something, then you just stand there, and if there’s a wave and it crashes against you, it crashes against, you’re still standing there, you have not backed up, you have not apologized, you have not conceded,” Lemieux said.

“I think if we are are able to stand our ground, we will accomplish much.”

Moreover, there are “millions and millions” of social conservatives in Canada, he added.

“I am pro-life, I am pro-family, I am pro-freedom of speech, I am social conservative, I am also Canadian. These are Canadian values, our country needs us and our Party needs us, too.”

Get breaking pro-life news on Facebook Messenger!

Social conservatives should ask friends and family to buy memberships to the Party, Lemieux said.

“Conservatives will form government again,” he stressed. “We better make sure the conservative party represents us. … This is the moment in time for the Conservative Party.”

Canadian citizens and permanent residents 14 years of age and older are eligible to vote for the new leader if they have purchased a Conservative Party of Canada membership by March 28.

For more information, go here. For more information on Lemieux’s campaign, go here.

March 20, 2017 (LifeSiteNews) — A homosexual attorney is warning that Beauty and the Beast'sinclusion of a "gay scene" will undermine the innocence of the many children who will watch the Disney film.

Joseph Murray is a former campaign official for conservative commentator and two-time presidential contender Pat Buchanan. He is also an administrator for LGBTrump, a group for pro-Trump homosexuals.

In describing the controversial "gay" cinematic moment between protagonist Gaston (Luke Evans) and sidekick Le Fou (Josh Gad), Beauty and the Beast director Bill Condon said, "By representing same-sex attraction in this short but explicitly gay scene, the studio is sending out a message that this is normal and natural.”

“And this is a message that will be heard in every country of the world, even countries where it’s still socially unacceptable or even illegal to be gay,” Condon said.

But as a "proud member of the LGBT community," Murray disagrees.

"Why do we have to expose our kids to such mature themes? Do they not have plenty of time to grow up? Or maybe the point is to make them grow up too soon and that is where I part ways with my community," he wrote in an Orlando Sentinelguest column on March 6.

Murray said he once opposed activist "Gay Days" gatherings of homosexuals at Disney theme parks for the same reason: It is inappropriate to expose young children to adult homosexuality. Now he decries Disney's "transformation" over the last two decades in which it has "worked to infuse its brand with political activism.”

A "primary benefactor" of Disney’s activism, he says, has been the "LGBT left lobby:"

"The vision for Walt’s world was clear: Entertain children. Disney characters were about hope, optimism and, above all else, making sure children were able to enjoy their innocence for as long as the outside world would permit. And Disney understood that part of its mission was to provide a buffer for as long as possible.

"Somewhere along the line, Disney went off course. No longer did it see itself as a defender of children’s innocence. Instead, it saw itself as a conduit to social change. Walt Disney became Harvey Milk."

Milk was a "progressive gay” activist and politician who compared social and religious conservatives to Nazis and gained fame as the first open homosexual to be elected to the San Francisco Board of Supervisors. Milk had a live-in, sexual relationship with a 16-year-old boy when he was 33, according to his homosexual biographer, Randy Shilts.

Murray writes that providing “affirmation” is a poor argument for subjecting kids to adult “gay” themes.

“I was gay and grew up without gay Disney and made it just fine,” he says. “I bet the fact I was able to keep my childhood innocence played a part.”

Most social conservatives would disagree with Murray’s viewpoint on the normalcy of homosexual, bisexual, and transgender lifestyles. But they would agree with him in condemning the modern “Gay Disney’s” injection of homosexuality and other adult subjects into its entertainment products.

Where is the America in which I grew up?

March 20, 2017 (LifeSiteNews) — The America I knew growing up is rapidly disappearing. Law and order is being replaced by mob rule. A madness has claimed the country, introduced in recent years by hate groups who are dedicated to using violent protests to cause political instability. In a frenzy of madness, often triggered by just an innuendo, these groups want to crush all opposition to their agenda. For astute observers of our culture, this doesn’t come as a surprise. Our great universities, which were once citadels of reason, a safe place for open discourse, have abandoned both – and they have become instead centers for cultivating insurrection, with minimal tolerance for truth and clear thinking.

As a result of the events in the last eight years, I have come to the conclusion that my beloved country – the land of liberty, once ruled by freedom of speech, law and order, and a constitutional government – is being irreparably compromised by rebellion. In just a matter of a few years, many Americans have tossed aside sense and have joyfully embraced mob violence (examples, Berkeley University, inauguration riots, Michael Savage attack, and much, much more). The lessons in history on the fall of great nations have all been ignored – for those lucky enough to have once learned these lessons in school.

Every scheme that man could conceive to break a nation is being used today by agitators (i.e., followers of Saul Alinsky) in their eagerness to wipe away our liberties and independence in their move toward complete political control.

The strong, proud country of yesteryear, which once produced wealthy entrepreneurs and productive workers, is rapidly vanishing. Its citizens are demanding entitlement programs over honest employment, and, to get their way, they are using divisive rhetoric and action. Progressive leaders have spawned a lazy generation of lazy parasites who expect everything to be given to them – from housing and food to university education and medical plans. (Several supporters: Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, and other left-wingers.)

What few resources that haven’t been squandered on federal aid programs (international and domestic) are insufficient to sustain us for long. America has seriously been weakened by poor management, and today it faces the world, impoverished and vulnerable, a cripple on broken crutches about to collapse (from the load of a nearly $20 trillion national debt).

Reaching this state didn’t occur overnight nor was it a result of one or two leaders. It was achieved over the years by the focused efforts of universities committed to turning students into social reformers obsessed with deconstructing a great nation. To quote David Horowitz in his March 14, 2017, letter to his readers, we have reached this point “through silent planning, crafty messaging using pop culture as their vehicle, and the subtle brainwashing of the most impressionable group of people in our society – students.”

Our great universities aren’t completely to blame for what is happening in our country. If they were, their mistakes and deceits would have been exposed and corrected by a fair-minded media. Unfortunately, this isn’t the case. Instead, the universities have been protected by a mass media, stripped of objectivity and impartiality and bent on advancing their views with minimal respect for truth. As a result, educators have been free to do whatever they like, while journalists aggressively discredit anyone who challenges them. (Review almost any news spin on major school issues.)

Protecting these two deceivers from their questionable activities is a shadow government, made up of federal, state, and local workers who remain securely positioned, regardless of who is in the White House. This shadow government or deep state, as it is currently being called, has compiled over the years sufficient data on all us (by tapping into our emails, phone and medical records, and more) in order to silence us, when necessary.

Until recently, its existence was never obvious. The country moved along quietly, controlled by this shadow government, its citizens under the illusion that their freedom and independence was secure. From time to time there would be a news-breaking scandal when someone in position would question the decision of the deep state. But before the truth could be examined closely, the whistleblower would be compromised and the matter would come to a swift end.

Information leaked to WikiLeaks by someone like an Edward Snowden, buried in the deep state, revealed the establishment’s true intent: not just to discredit a man, but to break a nation.

Then, one man entered the political scene about a year ago who recently stepped into the Oval Office, a flawed but determined man, with one obsession, to turn America around and clean the swamp. Almost immediately, all hell broke loose across the country.

Get breaking pro-life news on Facebook Messenger!

In an effort to discredit the man, everything positive that he was trying to do for the country was overshadowed by vicious innuendo and news stories. A sex tape, tax reports, an alleged Russian connection, and more were used against him to build a major scandal. In the establishment’s effort to bring him down, it exposed itself for what it really was attempting to do. That became obvious recently, when someone in position released highly classified CIA information. This information, which was leaked to WikiLeaks by someone like an Edward Snowden, buried in the deep state, revealed the establishment’s true intent: not just to discredit a man but to break a nation.

Some believe that it may be too late to stop this cozy triumvirate from achieving their goal, because they are too rooted for one president alone to handle. But one thing is for sure, whether the president wins or loses, the deep state’s cover has been blown. Thanks to the messaging of one brave man, the America has wised up to what is happening and what is at stake. Hopefully, that means that there will never be any turning back for the country and it will always be looking forward toward achieving a freer and healthier tomorrow.

Joe David is the author of six books and numerous newspaper and magazine articles. The Fire Within (a story about education) and The Infidels (a story about a holocaust) are both currently available through Amazon. www.bfat.com

In December, the website of the Archdiocese of Vienna led by Schönborn published a new presentation of the Ten Commandments. It included a commentary on the Sixth Commandment, “Thou shalt not commit adultery,” that could be interpreted to justify everything from masturbation to pornography and prostitution.

The article concludes — openly invoking Pope Francis’ solicitude for sinners — that refusing communion to the divorced and remarried “seems very questionable from a theological point of view.”

Says the article on the diocesan website: "Under its present formulation, the Sixth Commandment does not intend to make a general negative judgment on sexuality, nor does it justify the global prohibition of acts such as masturbation, pornography, prostitution, etc.”

Whether Cardinal Schönborn is personally aware of the text is a moot point. But he is responsible for it insofar as it purports to present the teachings of the Church under the official heading of the Catholic diocese of Vienna – and has been online for more than three months.

It says the Sixth Commandment “appears at first sight to be clear and unequivocal.” But things are not so clear-cut. “From the start, it is at the basis of the Catholic understanding of marriage and at the same time provides an irrefutable argument against divorce. But this leads to losing sight of one fact: the Ten Commandments, like all rules and laws, respond to specific social challenges and are products of their time. In order to clarify the original intention of the Sixth Commandment, it is necessary to consider the context in which it was born.”

The context is given by Deuteronomy 22:22, which the text calls “very instructive:” “If a man is discovered lying with a woman who is married to another, they both shall die, the man who was lying with the woman as well as the woman.” The text goes on to comment the Bible quote: “The woman is guilty of adultery because she has betrayed her marriage; the man, because he has intruded into another’s marriage. If a woman had sexual relations outside of her marriage, she was always an adulterer. A married man, on the other hand, only committed adultery if he had relations with another married woman.”

On the other hand, a man who had relations with a woman who was neither betrothed nor married was legally obliged to pay a fine and marry her and would not be allowed to divorce her, Deuteronomy also says, which isn’t getting off lightly …

The diocese’s text continues: “This way of treating man and woman in a way that seems to us unjust should be considered from the viewpoint of patriarchal social and family order that was the order of Israel. Since the married woman was, in the broad meaning of the word, a possession of her husband, adultery constituted an offense with regard to his right and his property. Moreover, the wife’s sexual fidelity provided the husband with a guarantee as to the legitimacy of his offspring. Thus, the Sixth Commandment was at first a norm destined to protect the perpetuation of the bloodline, social order and the idea of justice.”

Saint John Paul II, in his Theology of the Body, writes about this:

“On the basis of the analysis which we have previously carried out regarding Christ's reference to the ‘beginning’ in his discourse on the indissolubility of marriage and on the act of repudiation, the following is evident. He clearly saw the basic contradiction that the matrimonial law of the Old Testament had hidden within itself by accepting actual polygamy, namely the institution of the concubine, together with legal wives, or else the right of cohabitation with the slave. Such a right, while it combated sin, at the same time contained within itself, or rather protected, the social dimension of sin, which it actually legalized. In these circumstances it became necessary for the fundamental ethical sense of the commandment, ‘You shall not commit adultery,’ to also undergo a basic reassessment. In the Sermon on the Mount, Christ revealed that sense again, namely by going beyond its traditional and legal restrictions.” (August 20, 1980.)

This true, Catholic perspective does not appear at all in the text officially published by the archdiocese of Vienna. The text instead proposes to “translate the Sixth Commandment for today:”

“Since the social organization of the people of Israel is radically different from ours, the outlawing of adultery must ever be re-translated for our time, so as not to lose its relevance. For a long time, the tradition of the Church has attached to this Sixth Commandment all things pertaining to sexuality, and it collectively considered all sex acts outside of marriage as mortal sins.

“Such an interpretation does not stand up to the results of exegesis nor to the quest of theological ethics for a differentiated evaluation.”

This is a long way indeed from the presentation of the Sixth Commandment by the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which says:

“Jesus came to restore creation to the purity of its origins. In the Sermon on the Mount, he interprets God’s plan strictly: ‘You have heard that it was said, You shall not commit adultery. But I say to you that every one who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.’ What God has joined together, let not man put asunder.

“The tradition of the Church has understood the Sixth Commandment as encompassing the whole of human sexuality.” (N° 2336)

The archdiocese has a different vision. Under the heading: “No depreciation of sexuality,” it continues:

“Under its present formulation, the Sixth Commandment does not intend to make a general negative judgment on sexuality, nor does it justify the global prohibition of acts such as masturbation, pornography, prostitution, etc. It cannot even serve to justify easily the indissolubility of marriage, but on the contrary assumes a right to divorce that also existed in Israel.”

So, does the archdiocese go on to say that the Catholic Church teaches that all these things are grave evils? Not at all. It muddles the issue by continuing:

“Having respect for the marriage of others. The present relevance of the prohibition of adultery resides much more in the protection of marriage as a community of faithful love in a community formed by a man and a woman with equal rights.

“This is the request that it addresses to the man and to the woman: firstly, it recalls the constant respect one must have for the marriage of others, in which one should not intrude. On the other hand, it invites the spouses to keep in mind respect for their own marriage and wants to keep them from carelessly putting it at risk.”

So, can they put it at risk with all due care?

The text then speaks of marriage as a “precious sign of love” in which “God’s love for mankind, full of tenderness, becomes visible.”

But “can men love as God loves?” To that question, the answer is consistent with the new morality of Amoris laetitia:

“Confronted with such strong words, one is prompted to ask: Is that not asking too much of man? Can man love like God? Surely, man is the image of God (cf. Genesis 1:27) who is Himself love and fidelity, but man is not the model.

“To be a man is to be imperfect and capable of failing – in marriage as well; the opposite of ‘man’ would be ‘perfect.’ The Pope, the bishops and their theological counselors, being aware of the fact, are looking for a humane solution for those who are called the divorced and remarried, that is, persons who consider their sacramental marriage to have failed and who are committed in a relationship with another partner, a union from which other obligations derive.

“Excluding them – as was done up till now – from the sacrament of the Eucharist by referring to Jesus and his concern for mankind seems very questionable from a theological point of view. Christian marriage is an ideal towards which spouses walk together, the Sixth Commandment guides them and the love and fidelity of God give them the motivation to walk this road.”

Clearly, the Archdiocese of Vienna favors giving communion to adulterers.

But it goes one step further, subtly raising doubts about the validity of the Church’s teaching on human sexuality by suggesting that masturbation, pornography, prostitution and the like need to be re-evaluated and cannot be deemed to be prohibited by the Ten Commandments, these being relative to time and place.

While the text on www.erzdioezese-wien.at does not openly say that these acts are not gravely sinful, it does introduce the general idea that they should not be rejected as such because the Church has a positive vision of sexuality. It is the sort of relativism that helps people to make excuses for themselves or even imagine that they are doing right, since nothing is openly and clearly said about sex outside of marriage.

For the record, the presentation of the Fifth Commandment on the archdiocese’s website – “Thou shalt not kill” –adopts a very different approach, explaining that all murder of innocent human life is forbidden and adding Jesus’ words in the Sermon on the Mount to show that not only murder is wrong but also “abusing and degrading fellow human beings, even through calumny and intimidation.”